Smt. Sahana Ahmed Basu, Member.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The instant case in brief is that complainant obtained Bajaj Finserv Privilege Card (Number 2030 40000 4398 8072) from the O.P. on June, 2016. After one month on 21/07/2016 he tried to buy an Apple 6S mobile phone from Reliance Digital by using afore said Card which credit limit Rs.60,000/- But the card was not accepted in Bajaj Software at first. After trying 2/3 times it was accepted but no DO came. The Bajaj Finserv representative told the complainant that without the copy of printed DO he could not carry on the finance of Rs.51,400/- for the said i-phone. The complainant sent an e-mail to O.P.-1 on 22/07/2016 regarding the blocking of the card. Getting no reply from the O.P.-1 he sent another mail on 23/07/2016 asking the same. The O.P.-1 replied through e-mail that they are unable to activate the said EMI Card in line with their credit policy. The complainant went to the office of the O.P.-2 on 20/09/2016 and narrated the problems he was facing with the said card and demanded clarification to the representative of the O.P.-2 that although he had not purchased said i-phone by using the card, but the card is showing the same. In reply the aforesaid representative told that they had blocked the card because they did not get any proper verification. The complainant told him that he did not get any verification call. But the said office member told that they are helpless and the said card would be blocked for minimum 90 days. Then again on 29/03/2018 the complainant went to buy a VIVO V7 PLUS mobile phone from E-World Tech Life Pvt. Ltd. by using the same card. But the In-Shop Sales Executive of Bajaj Finserv told the complainant that the card was inactive and blocked by the company and asked the complainant to continue the sale by a fresh login by paying Rs.400/- extra, Rs.150/- as processing fee and Rs.600/- for fresh login plus DBD charges for that new card. The complainant argued that he already had a existing card of the said company, then why the company was showing him as a fresh user. Then the Shop Sales Executive informed the complainant that the delivery order had been issued already and the loan was approved, so it was irrelevant whether the complainant was taking the delivery or not, he had to pay the loan. Therefore, the complainant approached to this Forum for reliefs.
O.Ps. contested the case by filing W.V. The case of the O.Ps. is that they are loan company giving loans for various purpose to needy customers. They submitted that they did not violate the provisions and conditions of the loan agreement. They further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable under the C. P. Act, 1986. Because in the entire complaint the complainant nowhere contended or averred that the O.Ps. have any manner breached or violated any of the provisions and conditions of loan agreement. O.Ps. submitted that they have blocked the said card of the complainant from 22/07/2016 to 24/04/2017 since the complainant was a defaulter in the payments of the installments towards the loan availed in the past. Therefore, due to aforesaid reason when the complainant was trying to purchase the phone the EMI card was blocked and the complainant could not transact the amount hence the amount could not get proceeded. The card was unblocked on 28/07/2017. But on that date the complainant’s CIBIL score was 684. Hence, its limit has been decreased from Rs.86,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. Therefore, due to the outstanding dues the card was blocked again and the complainant was informed. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, they prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case.
On pleadings of both sides the following questions are came up to be determined.
- Whether the complaint maintainable ?
- Whether the O.Ps. are deficient in rendering service and indulged in unfair trade practice ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief / reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with Reasons
Points No.-1 to 3.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply to the questionnaires set forth by their adversaries. The complainant and O.Ps.-1 and 2 have also filed BNAs.
Fact remains that the complainant availed Bajaj Finserv Privilege Card from the O.Ps. It is true that when the complainant used the afore said card on 21/07/2016 to purchase aI-Phone the card was not accepted at first instance. But it was accepted after trying 2/3 times without DO. Therefore, without the copy of DO the transaction of Rs.51,400/- was not carried out by the Bajaj Finserv representative. The card was blocked for the period from 22/07/2016 to 27/07/2017. It was unblocked on 28/07/2017. Again on 29/08/2018 the complainant could not buy a mobile by using the said card as it was blocked by the O.Ps. and he had to continue the sale by fresh login which cost Rs.400/- extra, Rs.150/- for processing fee for fresh login and Rs.600/- as DBD charge.
On perusal of the documents furnished by the complainant and O.Ps. we find that evidences on record are insufficient for adjudicating the instant case. Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps. argued that the said EMI Card was delivered to the complainant at free of cost. But no evidence or loan agreement are filed by the O.Ps. The complainant denied about execution of any agreement. In absence of any cogent oral and documentary evidence of the O.Ps. in this aspect we cannot accept the point of maintainability raised by the O.Ps. Complainant did not furnished all the e-mails those mentioned in the complaint petition. Evidence furnished by the complainant shows that the complainant sent several e-mails to the O.Ps. He even forwarded his PAN Card and ADHAR Card details for unblocking his said EMI Card as per the request of and company policy of the O.Ps. But the problem remained unsolved till one year and finally on 28/04/2017 the O.Ps. informed the complainant that they had unblocked the said card. We find O.Ps. are deficient in their service.
Complainant again failed to purchase any item by using said card as the card was blocked by the CIBIL score. Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps. argued that they had informed the complainant about that. The complainant denied about such information. O.Ps. fails to produce any evidence to that aspect. Therefore, we find no logic in the submission by the O.Ps. in this regard and we find O.Ps. are deficient in rendering their service. In spite of holding one card the complainant had to login fresh by paying extra charges for which O.Ps. are also responsible by not informing them and failed to established their claim. Therefore, we hold that the O.Ps. practiced unfair trade.
As a result, the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Thus, all the points are answered in the affirmative.
As such, the case succeeds in merit.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. withlitigation cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only.
O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.1,500/- to the complainant along with litigation cost within 30 days from the date of this order.
O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony and pain.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order into execution,if the OPs transgress to comply the order.
